Allpar Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
There are lots of stupid laws on the books. Cases like this are because of laws that protect one class, so the lawyers look for someone else to sue.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
One does not need a license to move a car on private property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Lincoln

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Does one need a license to move a vehicle on private property?
(ps, it’s Fox News, might as well be from “weekly world news”)
You do realize that a local Fox TV station reporting is not Fox News, don't you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: drphlbrt

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Now stop and think about this:
1) How much is this lawsuit for?
2) What are the caps on the car owner's insurance policy?
I'll bet the first number is much higher than the second number.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Is this wjbk fox 2 Detroit? Wikipedia has it listed as a Fox News affiliate.
Yes, an affiliate with their own independent local reporting just like an ABC, CBS, or NBC affiliate. CSB, Fox, ABC, NBC don't manage the local news coverage of their affiliates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Z

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
I will point out that the local affiliates may have corporate owners like Sinclair that do require certain stories to be aired to push a narrative. Not saying that's occurring in this case, but it is possible in other stories.
This is not a national story pushed down from above.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
I'm still curious why it took 2 years for this case to come to trial.
This appears to be a Worker's Comp issue. What in heck is going on in Michigan?
It probably took some time to go through the Worker's Comp process and the payout was probably limited. So then you start looking for people to sue.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
I think the story serves a very good purpose. It shows a legal exposure most people don’t realize they have. The dealer could wash their hands of this. Then the car owner would be subject to a possible multi-million dollar judgement (far in excess of any insurance they’d have) which means the car owner would have to sue the dealer for negligence hoping to get a settlement to pay off the judgment against them.

This story should encourage law makers to revisit the laws in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doug D

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Yes the story does serve a purpose, so long as the ENTIRE story is told.

But if every vehicle owner was fully aware of, and fully understood their potential and extending liability for anyone and everyone that they ever give the keys to their car to, nobody would ever let anyone else operate their vehicle, ever again.

For example, just think of at a dealership service department where you now basically surrender your vehicle for them to work on it. If the vehicle owner can be held liable for everything, nobody could leave their vehicle, but they would have to stay at the dealership and the vehicle owner would have to be the one to move their own vehicle around the service department, whenever needed.

And we all know that won't happen because dealerships aren't going to allow customers in the shops due to liability and it would be impractical for people that need to work, while their vehicle is being serviced, to stay at the dealership all day, or several days, to be available to move their vehicle, when needed.

There needs to be some common sense applied and hold responsible, for any issues, the person operating the vehicle.

Can anyone come up with a scenario of where a vehicle operator, whether they own the vehicle or not, shouldn't, couldn't or wouldn't, be held responsible for their own negligence?
The full story should be told, but the fact is people need to be aware when they are exposed to potential liability. The original story served that purpose.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
The original version is correct. The vehicle owner is being sued because the victim’s family can’t sue the employer. All that is added in the “full” story is that the dealer (likely insurance) will make it right with the car owner. That’s fortunate that is happening without a second lawsuit.
I also don’t see anything in any version of the story blaming the vehicle.
I do see a big problem with the current laws in this case.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Makes one want to consider some sort of umbrella insurance policy.
Not just consider, buy. Anyone that has any assets (even just some home equity) should have an umbrella policy. Think of lawsuit verdicts and compare that to the limits in your auto insurance or home insurance policy. And no, I’m not an insurance agent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Z and Doug D

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Another reason to carry both comprehensive and collision on an older vehicle, if another vehicle hits and totals your car you will get reimbursed under collision. Years back my '93 Intrepid was hit by a neighbor and totaled. When called by the other insurance adjuster the first question was "Did you have collision coverage" and not how my daughter was doing (she was the driver). Right then I decided to have my insurance company pay me and deal with the other insurance company. I got a better than expected check from my insurance company and was able to get a replacement quickly. Side note, did get a another call from the other insurance adjuster basically complaining that my car was not worth what my insurance company paid me; all I could do was smile.
Similar situation when someone pulled out in front of my in my 99 Dakota R/T. The car owner (through the insurance company) tried claiming her "ex" boyfriend wasn't allowed to use the car and she was not liable. I stopped talking with them at that point. My insurance company paid for my truck, a quite reasonable offer which I took. About a month later my deductible was reimbursed when the other insurance paid up.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
But I also wonder what prompted him to get a job at a car dealership, and he had no operators license. Of all places to get a job, and in a service department, at some time or another, you almost have to know, or could expect, that you would have to drive a vehicle around on the property.
You do not need a driver's license to operate a vehicle on private property. It might (and probably should be) a requirement of employment for this job but that would be a corporate decision, not a law most likely.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top